History talk:Opera Track Style

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Odd case, Mozart's K. 196 // K. 207a/121

I've run into an odd case, which fits really badly into either OperaTrackStyle or ClassicalTrackStyle. That is Mozart's K. 196 // K. 207a/121. It is a symphony which concludes an opera - "La finta giardiniera, Op. 196", but also a symphony - "Symphony in D major, No. 51 K. 207a/121", with symphonic movements (Allegro molto, Andantino grazioso, and Allegro). To try and fit it with both standards, I'm using "Symphony No. 51 in D major, 207a/121: I. La finta giardiniera, Op. 196: Allegro molto" which is kind of an ugly amalgamation of both standards, but at least gets the info correct per both. -- BrianSchweitzer 00:32, 05 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I suppose this happens so seldom that we don't really need to create a specific rule for it, but I would have preferred "Symphony No. 51 in D major, KV 207a/121 / La finta giardiniera, KV 196: I. Allegro molto" I prefer to keep the movement number and the indication together (and KV is of course better ;-) ) --davitof 2007-10-05
    • I like that better too. As for KV vs K., using KV for a work indicator, especially in this case, would simply be incorrect - there is no such work as KV 207a, but there is a KV 121, or a K. 207a/121. The K./KV indicates which Kochel catalog is being used - there is no inherent "betterness" in my eyes to using a work number from K6, then indicating that it's a K1 work number. (My pet Mozart peeve in the current CSG :P). -- BrianSchweitzer 15:42, 05 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh - I am guessing that perhaps you meant "Symphony No. 51 in D major, K. 207a/121 / La finta giardiniera, Op. 196: I. Allegro molto"? (Op. instead of KV on the opera end of things) -- BrianSchweitzer 15:44, 05 October 2007 (UTC)
        • You guessed wrong, I just did a little search on Google and found La finta giardiniera with K, so I supposed you had missed this. But obviously you know much more about the subtleties of Mozart catalogues, so if you say K. and Op., I suppose you are right. But could you please update CSG Discussion to indicate that K. and KV are both correct and that they mean different things. So that next time I will avoid making this mistake :-) ) --davitof 2007-10-05
          • Hmm - on the "Op." part, then, I'm confused. The example given on this page is Mozart's "Don Giovanni". "Don Giovanni" is an opera, but there is no separate "Op." catalogue for Mozart - they're all KV, K2, K3, or K. It's a minor thing I'v e been ignoring, but since we're discussing it, why does this style (at least seem to) throw out the indication of which catalog, using only that catalogue's number? (ie, "Op. 500" rather than "KV ###")? I can see using it to indicate that a work is an opera, but I'd think the Act/Scene indication would be sufficient, or, perhaps less preferably, "Op. KV ###". On the topic of "Don Giovanni", a few things to note here too. While it's commonly known by the short name "Don Giovanni", the actual title of the opera is "Il dissoluto punito, ossia il Don Giovanni". Additionally, KV 500 is "Twelve Variations for Keyboard in B-flat major" - "Don Giovanni" is KV 527.  :) -- BrianSchweitzer 00:46, 06 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I think I misunderstood something here at some point - "Op." for "Opus", not "Op." for "Opera", if I now understand correctly. (Which would then definitely mean using Kochel numbering for Mozart, as Opus numbering for Mozart was depricated, oh, like 200 years ago :P). -- BrianSchweitzer 10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, one of my suggestion was about "Op. 196": Opera 196? WAM was prolific, but... Now should we use KV or K. or something else... Obviously you know much more than me about it, so I'll let you decide :-) --davitof 2007-10-26
                • Kind of a complicated question... Personally, I prefer K6 numbers always, but they can be confusing - even worse than CSG - if you're not used to dealing with them. If you're only working with common works - the Requiem, or, since this is the opera page, "Idomeneo, rè di Creta", "Die Entführung aus dem Serail", or "Così fan tutte", you can use KV (Kochel v1), as the KV and K6 are the same - KV 626, KV 366, KV 384, and KV 588 respectively (or you could use those exact same numbers and use "K." instead of "KV", makes really no difference, though to my eye, K. (Kochel 6) across the board just looks cleaner). But say you want to list something on the obscure end, say "Thamos, König in Ägypten". Now you've got different numbers in K1 and K6, so you'd have to use K6: "K. 336a/345". I'm trying to make it easy though. I'm currently working on adding a 170 CD "complete" set (the Brilliant Classics one, not the Philips one). With it, I'm covering 90% or so of all Mozart, and what's left out is the lost/utterly obscure stuff that most likely no one will ever need anyhow (if someone needs something not in that 170 CDs though, I'll add them to the list...) I've been working on a complete, CSG/OperaStyle standard listing of every single Mozart work, so ever again, it's just copy/paste the work you need, noone ever again need to figure out the CSG for a Mozart work. Much of it's not on the wiki yet, but I'll dump the rest up some time in the next few days... I still have 14 operas to finish, but then I'll be done with the entire listing (approximately 2,700 works in the final listing). The only parts of work listings that are somewhat common that I may miss, and need to add, are some various Arias and Recitativos that aren't in this particular set, but if I work on finishing the Philips when this is done, and clean up the other existing opera listings, I ought to pick up any of those that the Brilliant set left out. -- BrianSchweitzer 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • Wow, impressive. Now, shouldn't we agree on a way of writing "K#" that would mean "this was written by someone who doesn't really know about the Mozart catalogues"... No, I believe this level of reliability will be really worthwhile when we have some Work concept implemented in MB. --davitof 2007-10-26
                    • Well, I'd be happy if people were to copy and paste from that page, but otherwise, I'm fine with them (and GC) still using KV - it's still mostly correct, and makes it easier to spot those releases that need some extra attention in a clean-up pass. BTW, my Latin/German/Italian/French accents suck; I've been getting native speakers to double check for caps and accent errors in the aria and opera titles, but if anyone feels like it, please feel free to double check those bits on that page (I'll probably dump those lines in today or tomorrow, then add the missing operas as I finish them). It's also possible, though I hope unlikely, that I've missed small bits from tempos ("Allegro" instead of "Allegro moderato" for example), as I'm having to go from various release listings I can find (none of my Kochel catalogues includes the movements, only the works). In any case, if you spot a typo, please feel free to fix it on there!  :) (Now, someone else wanna do J.S. Bach? ;) ) -- BrianSchweitzer 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                      • That J.S. Bach comment, btw, was the reason I put it under a CSGStyle subcategory - my hope is that other people might do the same for other composers. (CSGStandard/JSBach, CSGStandard/Tallis, CSGStandard/Britten, etc...) -- BrianSchweitzer 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Separating this so the above comment doesn't get too too long... On Kx numbers, it can be confusing. There have been 7 versions of the Köchel catalogue. KV stood for "Chronologisch - thematisches Verzeichnis sämtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts". As it was the first version, "KV" became the common abbreviation. The second and third revisions added large numbers of works, but to avoid having to renumber the entire list, as the KV numbers had come into common useage, in most cases they tried to keep the same numbers, adding lowercase letters where needed to "insert" works into the chronological numbering scheme. However, this wasn't always true - for example, KV 139 became K2 114a. K3 added yet more works, moving many out of the Anhang (appendixes, abbreviated "Anh.") from KV and K2. K4 and K5 were basically reprints, not really changing anyting with numbers (I can't think of a single work that would need a K4 or K5 indication). K6 however added large numbers of works, as well as correcting for various errors from the prior versions. Yet more lower case letters were used, and where needed, now uppercase letters were also used (so the case of the letters used in K6 makes a difference), either solely or in combination (some examples: K. 537d, K. 571A, K. 61g/1, K. 167AB, K. 173dB, K. 15mm). Some works here too were renumbered yet again - that same one that earlier got renumbered to K2 114a in the sixth revision became K. 47a. The 7th revision was basically another reprint, like K4 and K5, so K6 is used as the most "up to date" listing. Now, the major works pretty much were focused on, to keep specifically those numbers the same, so something common - "Don Giovani", the Requiem, most of the first 41 Symphonies, etc, those have the same number be it KV, K2, K3, or K. - so "KV 527" wouldn't be incorrect to refer to Don Giovani. Typically, what I've seen - when publishers bother to use the correct catalogue indication - is that they try to use all the same indication. So, if a CD is only Don Giovani, it'll use KV. If a CD has bits from Don Giovanni, but also some of the lesser works which need K. numbers, then it'll use K. for "Don Giovanni". Of course, lots are lazy about it, using KV for K. numbers, etc etc (sometimes misnaming keys and movement tempos too... :( ). In any case, that's why, above, I used "Kx" - depending on the context, either would be correct for Don Giovanni. For "La finta giardiniera", if it was only the opera on the release, and not the symphony, then you could use either style - that work is # 196 in any of the catelogues. But once you add the concluding symphony (one of the "lesser" symphonies, at No. 51, with the "greater" ones ending at No 41), then you move into K. territory, since it was numbered 121 in K1, but 207a in K6. You could use just the K. number, but typically, for easy of identifying the lesser works, both the earliest and latest Kx number is used (K6/earliest). So, "K. 207a/121" (when the earliest was K1, you don't normally bother to identify it - only when it was K2 or K3 (and these are really rare and obscure; mostly K6 Anh. works) would you use "K. Anh A109fA-C/K2 417B"). -- BrianSchweitzer 00:46, 06 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Just a live example of that last case from one I'm working on at the moment. K1 had it as 2 works, K2 realized it was a single work, then K6 renumbered that single work: "Concerto Movement in E-flat major for Horn, K. 370b/K2 Anh. 98b/KV Anh. 97+Anh. 98" (2 movements). -- BrianSchweitzer 19:34, 06 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, shouldn't we create a wiki page about Mozart catalogues? --davitof 2007-10-26
      • I'm not sure we need one - the real wikipedia does an ok job on what they are, and given a choice between explaining how to figure out the full K. cat # for a obscure work (which you can see is complicated) or simply giving the full CSG title already done, I'd much rather the latter. (Though perhaps a huge part of this (Mozart) discussion can/should be deleted or moved elsewhere, as it has only very tangentally has anything to do with OperaTrackStyle.) -- BrianSchweitzer 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-referencing to other track style articles

The top of this article presently reads, "This StyleGuideline applies to classical music only. For popular music see the ReleaseArtistStyle." That last can't be right, can it? Shouldn't it read "see the TrackTitle"? Would be nice to also cross-reference the other styles: "See also TrackTitle, ClassicalTrackTitleStyle, MusicalSoundtrackStyle." -- JimDeLaHunt 2007-11-25

  • I feel empowered. Change made. -- JimDeLaHunt 2007-12-06

Do we have any room within OperaStyle to be able to contain tempo(s) for movements? -- BrianSchweitzer 04:50, 07 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you give an example where this would be needed, so that we can try to set a rule? --davitof 2008-01-11